Re: Roadmap for ldapmodule

[Michael <mi...@st...>]

Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> 
> Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Michael Ströder's letter:
> 
> > Please, rename _ldap back to ldap
> 
> if you simply do an "import ldap" you automatically get a
> "from _ldap import *" and all the previous code continues working.
> **no need** to change a single line of code.

Oh, I see. Didn't know that.

> > New directories applications/ and demos/ should be created for
> > existing applications (e.g. Fog's lappo going into
> > applications/lappo/) and small example code snippets for tutorial
> > purpose going into demos/.
> 
> i would better like to keep code snippets and applications (lappo)
> requiring ldaplib under ldaplib.

IMHO packages of the module distributions should be kept small.
Well, simple demos could be integrated into the modules but not
larger applications.

> else an user will download the C
> module and demos only and then write us the the demos do not work...

A simple table listing which modules are needed by a specific demo
or application helps with that problem. It's just a matter of proper
docs and it's really simple in this particular case (there won't be
so many different demos and applications, I guess).

> > 6. Distributing with Python's standard lib (low priority):
> 
> i don't agree on that.

Any good reason why?

> distribution makers like redhat or debian will
> bundle python-ldap anyway.

But think of e.g. a Win32 distribution, FreeBSD ports or Python on
AS/400. Up to now there are no package maintainers for those
platforms. If python-ldap's modules are integrated into the Python
distribution it makes life *much* easier on all platforms. Well,
it's just a low-priority goal to be reached during the next year.

> ah! and Win2000 Active Directory is not
> compatible with standard ldap...

There are different scopes of compability with LDAP. But that's
another story probably off-topic here.

Ciao, Michael.